Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I take note of the documents in relation to the Avoca Drive upgrade project and in relation to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiry into the closure of branches.

The first thing I will talk about is Avoca Drive. Last week the Senate asked the Albanese government for the business case, including colour-coded spreadsheets that justified the expenditure of $100 million for Avoca Drive. I know that the Labor Party take infrastructure spending very seriously, because when the Morrison government spent $30 million on acquiring the last piece of the Leppington Triangle, and that $30 million was spent on 30 acres of land—you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that one acre is worth $1 million, and one acre is about 4,044 square metres, or about 500 square-metre blocks. If you quickly do the sums you will realise that that was about was about paying about $12,500 for every 500 square metres of land. I don't think there is anywhere in the Sydney basin that you could buy a block of land for that, yet the Labor Party was claiming that the Morrison government paid too much for the Leppington Triangle. That wasn't the case for the reason I just laid out—there is nowhere in Sydney you can get 500 square metres of flat land for $12,500.

Having said that, the Leppington Triangle was for the Western Sydney airport, a critical piece of nation-building infrastructure that needed to be bought so we could finish the airport and get this country moving again. On the other hand, what we've got here is expenditure of $100 million—three times the amount of money spent on acquiring the last 30 acres needed for the Western Sydney airport—for Avoca Drive, which is a state road. It's not a federal road. The now federal government—the then opposition—committed $30 million to that road on a fifty-fifty partnership with the New South Wales government at the last election, and then suddenly last year in January 2023 they have gone and allocated another $70 million. This piqued my interest because I know that the Morrison government was strewn over the coals for spending $30 million on the Western Sydney airport. I might add that my former colleague and still friend Senator Bridget McKenzie was strewn over the hot coals for her colour-coded spreadsheets, so I think it's only fair that the Labor Party also provide their business case for spending $100 million on a state road, particularly the $70 million increase in funding that wasn't matched by the New South Wales government.

I find it quite interesting that the federal government, when we've got a cost-of-living issue and a lot of constraints on the budgets can suddenly find $100 million for Avoca Road that does lead to Copacabana Beach—you can draw your own conclusions there. I'm very disappointed to say that the reply we got today from the Albanese Labor government was that the federal government did no business case whatsoever; they just suddenly decided to put another $70 million on top of the initial $30 million for a road based on a business case from the New South Wales government.

I've put in another notice of motion—it should appear tomorrow or the day after on the Notice Paperfor the production of all correspondence between the New South Wales government and the federal government. That's because I want to know why the Albanese government decided to up the ante on this expenditure without getting a similar commitment from the New South Wales government. It seems odd to me that the New South Wales government would go to the federal government without being prepared to stump up their own money. Did the Albanese government go to the New South Wales government and say, 'We need to build this road,' and the New South Wales government turn around and say, 'No, we don't,' or, 'We only need to put in $30 million each'? Why did the Albanese Labor government decide to put an extra $70 million into this road that leads to Copacabana Beach and the very house that the Prime Minister recently bought?

There need to be answers on this issue and this funding, and we need to see the business case. I want to see the federal government's business case. They claim they didn't do one. Well, my question is: why didn't the federal government do a business case? At the end of the day, it's taxpayers' money paid to the federal government, so the federal government should have a business case. They can't just tick and flick on a New South Wales government business case, especially when the New South Wales government wasn't prepared to put in more than $30 million. I think the Albanese Labor government needs to come clean—very, very clean—on this, because I'm starting to smell a bit of a whiff here.

The other thing we've had an order for the production of documents on is to see whether the Albanese Labor government has responded to the report of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs References Committee inquiry into bank closures in regional Australia. This would have to have been one of the most widely followed Senate inquiries during the term of the Albanese Labor government. It had an enormous amount of media attention because people are rightly concerned about the closure of branches in the regions. As we found out, it's not just in the regions; there's even a lot of angst in metropolitan communities about the closure of local branches. People are fed up to the back teeth, whether it's big government or big business that's screwing the little guy.

That's what we're seeing now. Let's take insurance. It's not quite banking but it's similar in the sense that it was all privatised in the 1990s. When you get on the phone wanting customer service you're listening to waltzes and hitting numbers trying to get through to someone who'll actually speak to you, because you can't get any service anymore. I've had this happen to me. I like to go to the branch and stand in a line playing on my phone and then getting some face-to-face service—I'm a bit old-fashioned like that, I'll admit. But when it comes to complex administrative issues that are messy, things like internet banking just don't cut it. I've done this a number of times. I've gone to the bank and they've said: 'No, we can't serve you. You've got to ring this number.' You're shunted back to the telephone to ring someone in a capital city, in some business centre somewhere. I live in an outer metropolitan region and I can assure you that, while I can probably live with this, people in the regions can't.

When we were doing this Senate inquiry, we were at one town in Western Australia where they had to do a 300-kilometre round trip to go and see their local bank manager. That was a prosperous town of 2½ thousand people—not the world's biggest town, I accept, but still an important town in the great state of WA, which punches above its weight in delivering wealth for this country. These people are entitled to have access to a bank where they can get face-to-face service.

That's the guts of the issue, but what I want to know is: why is the Albanese government not responding to this very, very important Senate inquiry about the delivery of very, very important essential services? I'll tell you why. It's because Labor, when it comes to financial services in this country, have blood on their hands. It was none other than Paul Keating who privatised the Commonwealth Bank. I can assure you that Ben Chifley would be rolling in his grave if he knew what the Labor Party had become after his death. So I say to the Labor Party—those on the other side of the chamber: What is it that you're hiding? Why can't you respond to the report of this very important Senate inquiry?

This inquiry has called for the creation of a public bank—like we used to have with the CBA—to provide a bit of ethical competition and a bit of service competition to the private banks, who, in the last 30 years, have shut something like 3,000 branches. The branch network has declined by something like 65 or 70 per cent, and it's still declining. Weigh that up against the fact that, in that time, Australia's population has almost doubled. Back in 1993 or 1994, when the CBA was privatised, Australia had a population of about 15 million; we now have a population of 27 million, and we have about 60 or 70 per cent fewer branches out there. Let's not forget: the banks got bailed out during the GFC and they got bailed out during COVID. I think the least we can expect is some sort of service delivery from the banks themselves and some accountability and transparency from the Albanese Labor government, before their term ends, as to what they're going to do about this critical issue.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.